Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!

Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Four years ago, Motor Trend named the Toyota Tundra the 2008 Truck of the Year, calling it one of the biggest, strongest and most capable trucks on the market. Its launch, said the magazine, was “a seismic event for the industry” – a Japanese truck that could finally challenge its Detroit rivals.

The coveted award was just one of many accolades that have since been showered on the Tundra. J.D. Power & Associates last year named the 2008 Tundra the most reliable pickup after three years of ownership, and Consumer Reports called the Tundra a “good bet” based on its history of “better than average” reliability.

Ask an auto mechanic, however, and you might get a different story. The ’08 Tundra ends up in the shop more often than most vehicles and the repairs typically cost Tundra owners a pretty penny, according to CarMD, which analyzes repair trends on roughly 136 million vehicles up to 10 years old.

CarMD gives the 2008 Tundra a “D” grade due to frequent failures and moderately high repair costs. The most common repair on the truck is “Replace Air Injection Pump” at an average cost of $969.

Car shoppers have no shortage of resources available when researching which vehicle to buy. But the problem with most vehicle rankings, surveys and awards is that they are usually opinion-based and are typically skewed toward new cars.

Consumer Reports comes up with its reliability ratings by asking its subscribers to report serious problems they’ve had with their vehicles in the prior 12 months. It then uses that data to predict how well cars on sale now will hold up. Predicted-reliability scores are based on a car’s track record over the three most recent model years (provided the model wasn’t redesigned in that time).

But today’s vehicles are built to last longer – the average age of cars on the road today is almost 11 years — so even three years isn’t long enough to rate the true reliability of a vehicle.

CarMD says its Vehicle Health Index, based on actual repair data, looks past the new car ‘honeymoon’ period to help car shoppers get a true picture of what to expect as vehicles age. It looks at real-life repair data for one full calendar year on 10 model years worth of vehicles, weighing the frequency of repairs and the cost of those repairs equally. It gives each vehicle a letter grade for reliability, along with a list of the most common repairs and the repair costs, based on the car’s mileage. This helps buyers anticipate what problems might crop up at a certain mileage, and helps them figure possible repair costs into their budget and even decide whether to buy an extended warranty.

The 2007 Honda Civic is another example of a highly rated car that might need costly repairs down the road. Consumer Reports rated the 2007 Civic tops in vehicle dependability for its class. But CarMD gave it a “C”, with frequent failures and average repair costs. The most frequent repair is “Replace ABS Module Assembly” at a cost of more than $942.

Where does CarMD get its crystal ball? From your car’s “check engine” light. Since 1996, the U.S. has required each vehicle to have an onboard diagnostic computer to monitor everything from engine to transmission sensors to look for emissions-related problems. The “check engine” light alerts drivers to problems that could be as simple as a loose gas cap or a misfiring spark plug to something far more important – and costly – like a faulty oxygen sensor or catalytic converter.

CarMD downloads data from each of these “check engine” incidents, and combines it with repair information uploaded from a network of 3,000 participating service technicians at dealerships and independent repair shops. The result is a rich database about how certain vehicles perform over time.

For its newly released 2012 Vehicle Health Index, CarMD analyzed more than 163,000 specific repairs during a one-year period ending Sept. 1, and estimated repair costs, based on several standard sources.

To measure the frequency of repairs for a particular vehicle, it compared the percentage of reported check engine failures for that model to its share of all 136 million 2002-2012 model-year vehicles on the road. For example, if 20 percent of check engine light problems reported came from a certain vehicle but it made up only 10 percent of the vehicle population it would have an index of 2.00 (20 percent divided by 10 percent). It’s most likely a car to avoid. An index of 1.00 means that the frequency of failures is matched to its percentage of vehicles on the road, and thus, has average reliability.

The most reliable vehicles had an index far less than 1.00, including the 2010 Toyota Corolla (.080), 2008 Ford Taurus (.083), 2010 Subaru Forester (.099) and 2010 Hyundai Sonata (.111).

Here’s a look at the 10 Most Reliable Vehicles, according to CarMD:

2010 Toyota Corolla

The Corolla consistently ranks high in reliability studies and CarMD's analysis of vehicle repairs confirms it. It has few problems, and the average cost of repairs is $283.13. Despite a rash of highly publicized safety recalls, Toyota is the most reliable of any manufacturer, according to CarMD.

2008 Toyota Yaris

The tiny Yaris is a good bet, based on its showing in CarMD's analysis of vehicle repairs. It had a low incidence of "check-engine" problems and the average repair cost was $259.33.

2009 Honda Pilot

The Pilot doesn't even show up on J.D. Power's annual Vehicle Dependability Study, but CarMD says it's the most reliable full-size SUV on the road. Average repair costs are just $141.

2009 Honda Accord

The Accord is another vehicle that's not included in the J.D. Power dependability rankings, but its low failure rate and modest repair costs ($201.74) earned it a Top 10 ranking at CarMD.

2010 Subaru Forester

Subaru has some of the most dependable vehicles on the road, which probably explains why Subaru owners hang on to them longer than most other brands. The Forester rarely needs repairs, and when it does, the average cost is just $116.33.

2007 Lexus ES 350

The Lexus ES 350 is rated the most reliable luxury model on CarMD, with average repair costs of $377.71. But a "check engine" light is fairly rare in this car.

2011 Hyundai Sonata

Hyundai had the lowest average repair cost for the Top 10 manufacturers, at $271.86. Toyota's average, by comparison, was $490.72. But Toyotas have fewer repair incidents, so it outranks Hyundai overall. The Sonata, with average repair costs of $336.30, was the top-ranked vehicle from the Korean manufacturer.

2011 Chevrolet Impala

GM will introduce a newly redesigned Impala next year. It can only hope it's as reliable as the outgoing one, which had few problems and average repair costs of just $184.30.

2010 Subaru Outback

Subaru had two cars in the Top 10. The Outback holds up well, and repair costs average just $110.43. A testament to the longevity of Subarus: the most common repair is replacement of the catalytic converter, a part which fails only after extensive wear and tear.

Funny that the Toyota Tundra was best on CR's list, but lousy in the rear world.

Funny that and Impala did good I honestly would never have expected that.

Just like the A-bodies (Oldsmobile Ciera / Buick Century) reached very good reliability by GM tinkering with them over a decade without major changes, just incrementally improving. Then killing the A-bodies in the mid-90's.

So the Impala gets really good just before getting fully redone. So it goes.

Car engines these days can easily, very easily, make it 150k miles with regular maintenance.

Car engines of the past 20 years can easily make it to 150k. 150k is nothing nowadays.

Cars these days may actually do worse. New engines are running higher compression, leaner, and hotter than ever before in search of efficiency. Couple that with unproven (longterm) technology like DI, CVTs (which already have laughable reliability), and electronically controlled EVERYTHING.

Car engines of the past 20 years can easily make it to 150k. 150k is nothing nowadays.

Cars these days may actually do worse. New engines are running higher compression, leaner, and hotter than ever before in search of efficiency. Couple that with unproven (longterm) technology like DI, CVTs (which already have laughable reliability), and electronically controlled EVERYTHING.

People say that with engines ten years ago, twenty, thirty... People always think complex electronics means less reliability, which is very incorrect.

Also, for the past twenty years engines are getting better in reliability, so your saying engineers gave up on the twenty-first year.

People say that with engines ten years ago, twenty, thirty... People always think complex electronics means less reliability, which is very incorrect.

Also, for the past twenty years engines are getting better in reliability, so your saying engineers gave up on the twenty-first year.

Hence "may." DI can lead to carbon buildup which fouls up engines pretty badly. CVTs tend to be sealed meaning if anything goes wrong you have to replace the entire unit. CVTs tend to go wrong quite often. There have been electronics in the past, but not to the extent today. Everything is interdependent. I'm not saying all new cars are going to catastrophically fail. They are just working a lot harder.

Plus look at modern emission controlled diesels. Their reliability SUCKS.

My old MR2 might have been a rare one, but when I sold it in 2010 with 355,000kms on the clock, the only major thing it had replaced since it was bought was the clutch, which was replaced at 305,000kms (it went the day I bought it). That was a car built in 1989 and driven hard every single day.

Compared to my 2002 Alero, which has had the front hubs replaced, warped rotors replaced twice, fuel pump replaced, and now it throws an ABS/Trac/Service vehicle light randomly even though the car drives fine. I cannot wait to get rid of this.

Anyway, the article doesn't really make much sense to me that they're comparing a bunch of 2010-2011 models for reliability when they haven't even been on the road that long.

Hence "may." DI can lead to carbon buildup which fouls up engines pretty badly. CVTs tend to be sealed meaning if anything goes wrong you have to replace the entire unit. CVTs tend to go wrong quite often. There have been electronics in the past, but not to the extent today. Everything is interdependent. I'm not saying all new cars are going to catastrophically fail. They are just working a lot harder.

Plus look at modern emission controlled diesels. Their reliability SUCKS.

Loved that series. A guy at my firestation got one because of that. My question had always been "Sure, it had better mpg and can tow better; but, can it do both at the same time?". Meaning, what kind of mpg is it getting while towing 10,000lbs vs the mpg of the V-8s while doing the same thing. My friend loved it, but found out the MPG wasn't working for him. He wasn't getting near what was said. He drove it aggressive though, so that is why I still have that question. Real world mpg on the EcoBoost compared.

Just like that last part racing in the desert. They said it was using half the fuel, but didn't say if they were going as fast as their V-8. Did they finish in the same time they would have with the other engine?

Just like that last part racing in the desert. They said it was using half the fuel, but didn't say if they were going as fast as their V-8. Did they finish in the same time they would have with the other engine?

Ha, they conveniently didn't mention which place it came in. They just applauded the truck for finishing when so many Baja drivers didn't even finish.

I just watched the video where they remove the engine from the Baja truck to have it shipped out for the teardown. They pull the engine out and put it in the bed of a Silverado to haul away......

You mean the one that's been on the market for all of 13 seconds? SHOCKING!

What CVTs are you referring to? I know that Nissan has had issues with their CVTs, but there's many cars with CVTs out there that have had no more issues than conventional automatics have. CVTs have also been around quite a long time. All Toyota and Lexus hybrids since 1997 have used a CVT, for example. I don't know how you got to the conclusion that they are less reliable than conventional autos (EDIT: that could be true, I just don't know how you know). The CVT was really a godsend on the Mitsubishi crossover rental that I had a few months ago...the thing was so gutless that it had to be in high RPMs to be able to get out of its own way, which it still had trouble doing.

The Justy used a CVT way back when. EDIT: I'm not saying that the Justy's CVT was anything like modern CVTs, just to be clear, Clarence.

What CVTs are you referring to? I know that Nissan has had issues with their CVTs, but there's many cars with CVTs out there that have had no more issues than conventional automatics have. CVTs have also been around quite a long time. All Toyota and Lexus hybrids since 1997 have used a CVT, for example. I don't know how you got to the conclusion that they are less reliable than conventional autos (EDIT: that could be true, I just don't know how you know). The CVT was really a godsend on the Mitsubishi crossover rental that I had a few months ago...the thing was so gutless that it had to be in high RPMs to be able to get out of its own way, which it still had trouble doing.

The Justy used a CVT way back when. EDIT: I'm not saying that the Justy's CVT was anything like modern CVTs, just to be clear, Clarence.

Audi ditched CVTs (they tried it out in the FWD A4) due to reliability issues.
Nissan's CVTs are so bad they had to extend the warranties of nine models 10 years/120k miles.
Ford ditched CVTs (tried them out in the Freestyle) due to huge reliability issues.
MINI ditched CVTs due to reliability issues.

Toyota style hybrid CVTs are a completely different beast. They rely on planetary gear sets instead of belts.

CVTs offer little benefit over a modern torque converter automatic or DSG. They suck to drive, have little to no benefit for efficiency, and are impossible to repair for the most part.

Car engines of the past 20 years can easily make it to 150k. 150k is nothing nowadays.

Cars these days may actually do worse. New engines are running higher compression, leaner, and hotter than ever before in search of efficiency. Couple that with unproven (longterm) technology like DI, CVTs (which already have laughable reliability), and electronically controlled EVERYTHING.

I've often wondered about that myself. Pushing materials to extreme limits for greater efficiency and advances in engineering design accuracy mean there could be less margin of safety built into the design and inherently shorter life. Don't forget lighter oil running for longer duration and extended maintenance intervals on everything.

Trading a few percent more in fuel efficiency for less overall lifetime would be a poor trade in the total energy cost for a car.

Loved that series. A guy at my firestation got one because of that. My question had always been "Sure, it had better mpg and can tow better; but, can it do both at the same time?". Meaning, what kind of mpg is it getting while towing 10,000lbs vs the mpg of the V-8s while doing the same thing. My friend loved it, but found out the MPG wasn't working for him. He wasn't getting near what was said. He drove it aggressive though, so that is why I still have that question. Real world mpg on the EcoBoost compared.

Just like that last part racing in the desert. They said it was using half the fuel, but didn't say if they were going as fast as their V-8. Did they finish in the same time they would have with the other engine?

Real world driving my EcoBoost vs. one of my neighbors (we work at the same place) I get about 0.8 mpg better than he does. Not quite what was advertised, but close enough for rounding.

Towing is where the EcoBoost really shines. It's better than any truck I've ever towed with that had a gas engine. So far I've gotten 1.5 mpg better than my average in an older F150 with the 5.4L, 1 mpg better than the Nissan Titan, 2 mpg better than the Chevy 1500 (w/ the 5.3L), and 3 mpg better than a V6 Chevy Blazer hauling an open 5000lb car trailer. It's not so much the improvement in mpg when towing, it's the POWER. Even vs. the new dodge I tried it feels a lot stronger towing.

The racing in the dessert I have no idea. But real world I like this engine. Hopefully it holds up after 200K miles. (crosses fingers)